Filed: Feb. 28, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FEBRUARY 28, 2007 No. 05-15246 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 04-00610-CR-T-24-TBM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALEJANDRO GONGORA ORTIZ, a.k.a. Cano, a.k.a. Chano, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (February 28, 2007) Before BIRCH, BLACK and BARKE
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FEBRUARY 28, 2007 No. 05-15246 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 04-00610-CR-T-24-TBM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALEJANDRO GONGORA ORTIZ, a.k.a. Cano, a.k.a. Chano, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (February 28, 2007) Before BIRCH, BLACK and BARKET..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEBRUARY 28, 2007
No. 05-15246 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00610-CR-T-24-TBM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALEJANDRO GONGORA ORTIZ,
a.k.a. Cano,
a.k.a. Chano,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(February 28, 2007)
Before BIRCH, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel J. Fernandez, retained counsel for Alejandro Gongora Ortiz in this
direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the
appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738,
87 S. Ct.
1396,
18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals
that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because
independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,
counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Ortiz’s conviction and sentence
are AFFIRMED.
2